tegory. However, it is not easy to draw clear boundaries.
Much free-time rea-
The Pedagogical Text – an
important element in the textual
world? Reflections on the concepts
of ’text’, ’context’ and ’literacy culture’
By bente aamotsbakken, Vestfold University College, Norway
introductory reflections
What do we actually mean when we talk about ‘text’? By asking such a broad,
yet challenging question, we become aware of what is problematic about this
field of study. Nowadays it is necessary to have quite an open attitude when the
concept or concepts of ‘text’ are discussed. This is because there are so many
ways in which researchers approach ‘text’. We must decide which perspectives
we wish to operate with, and then distinguish ‘text’ from that which does not
fall within this definition.1
We must also have a clear strategy for defining the term ‘pedagogical’
when we wish to talk about ’pedagogical texts’. We must employ an operative,
functional definition; this definition can be ‘added to’ or extended when we
examine other cultural contexts. It is important that ‘pedagogical’ is not me-
rely linked to learning situations, or, even more narrowly, to institutional edu-
cational situations.2 The concept must be discussed in terms of its basic
content, namely that it has something to do with the transmission of informa-
tion. If it is the intention to inform or clarify that is the basis for a definition
of the category of ‘pedagogical text’, then this category will include very many
different texts and genres. Such a broad definition of ‘pedagogical text’ might,
for example, include many newspaper texts and media texts. 3 It might be clai-
med that such a definition is too comprehensive and general. If we link the in-
tention of learning to it (i.e. the more traditional understanding of the
concept of ‘pedagogical’), our definition can state that texts which have the
joint intentions of informing and producing learning are ‘pedagogical texts’.
However, it is necessary to go beyond the arenas of school and educational in-
stitutions in our discussion of ‘pedagogical texts’. The entire occupational sec-
tor, with its many employment roles and professions, continually makes use of
pedagogical texts; information, reflection and learning are part of the proces-
ses of everyday working life. We can therefore argue that texts which are used
in working or professional contexts may be characterized as pedagogical, while
texts that are meant for entertainment and recreation belong to another ca-
24
DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.16993/dfl.6
ding, media use and multimodal activities do, in fact, lead to learning. For
this reason it is more relevant to focus on the intention of the text; if it clearly
belongs to the area of information or learning, we may define it as a ‘pedago-
gical text’. Institutional location is an insufficient criterion; it is the text’s in-
tention that is essential.
If we take a ludic and inclusive approach to the concept of ’pedagogical
text’ (and, indeed, texts in general) we will find diversity, creativity and genre
experimentation. There have been many innovative research insights into the
field of fiction (Ledin, 1996 and 1999; Culler, 1975 and 1981; Lodge, 1988;
Bhatia et al, 1993). We can imagine analogous research into the non-fictional
field of which ‘pedagogical texts’ are a part. We have the possibility of pursuing
our inquiries in many directions, of exploring unconventional textual contexts
and contributing to the shaping of new genres, norms and concepts. Today we
already can discern such a development if we look at screen-based text cultu-
res. These are perspectives we will return to later. However, now it is approp-
riate to start by considering the concept of ‘text’, since it provides a framework
for all cognitive activity in educational and professional cultural contexts.
what is text?
The original meaning of ‘text’ is derived from the Latin verb texere, ‘to weave’.
The concrete and visual aspect of the etymology is interesting. A weaved piece
of cloth hangs together, but has clear boundaries or frames; therefore it is a
completed whole. We can see the composition, the structure and the margins
of the weave. We can also compare the weave to similar pieces of cloth. Seen
in this way, the weave becomes both a visual entity and a mental construction.
‘Text’ is to be understood as something that is continuous and, as such, com-
prises a totality. However, we do not move far into the world of text before we
encounter loose textual fragments that also urge us to label them as ‘text’. The
question then is how small a textual fragment can be in order to be considered
as ‘text’. It is also appropriate to ask questions about the degree of logical com-
position or coherence that must exist for of us to define an item as ‘text’.
It is unrealistic to suppose that we will arrive at definitive answers to such
questions. However, it is essential that they are raised when we are engaged in
a discourse on ‘text’ and the development of the concept of ‘text’. If we ope-
rate with an understanding of text as something visual and limited, our asso-
ciations will immediately be linked to verbal texts or written/printed texts.
Today, however, such a narrow perspective is regarded as somewhat restrictive.
The culture’s oral texts, which of course are its original or oldest ones, can
only be regarded as visual in an extremely limited sense. We can imagine a
synchronous situation with a speaker and listener. However, if the text that is
25
performed and interpreted is not taped or in any other way recorded for pos-
terity, it has a merely momentary and ephemeral quality. It is not preserved
and is, in Paul Ricoeur’s terms, broken and fragmentary (Ricoeur 1997). How-
ever, it is still a ‘text’, even though its non-durable nature makes it difficult to
document or verify.
The two main types of text, oral and written, can both be validly considered
as ‘texts’, even though they cannot be subjected to the same system of criteria.
The normative system that examines textual coherence and communicational
purpose must, however, be applicable to both oral and written texts (Berge,
1990 and 2001; Aamotsbakken, 2006). Nevertheless, norms of coherence,
meaning and clarity are not sufficient to give an item the status of ‘text’. This
is axiomatic, since printed texts have, up until our own period, had a higher
status than the culture’s oral texts. This is clear, even though some theorists re-
gard oral expression or oral discourse as the original type and therefore the
most important. Jacques Derrida (1997) is amongst those who have polemici-
zed against the apparently obvious statement that oral textual expression al-
ways ‘goes before’ the written. It all rests on a fallacy, he claims, as he argues
for the written expression to be considered as the original form. It is therefore
necessary to reflect over the texts of the written culture and their special place
in the textual hierarchy.
Our western culture’s preference for printed texts is not a self-evident
value, one that has been asserted since the advent of writing. It was firstly at
that stage in history when time became a validating factor in people’s lives
that it is reasonable to date the rising importance of printed texts. Even in the
Middle Ages, or the Western European Renaissance, it is not apparent that
dating and chronology were important social and human values (Ong, 1982
[1990]: 97 f.). When writing and, gradually, the printed text became parts of
ordinary people’s consciousness, the shift was not only from oral to written
speech, but from sound to visuality. The visual space that a book page repre-
sented, for example, became important because of the invention of the prin-
ting press and the ensuing distribution of text. The connection between
writing and printing of the written word became a focus of interest. At the
same time, there arose a focus on the relationship between ‘the spoken’ and
‘the printed’
Today, written texts are extremely important. However, print media texts
are challenged by the texts of alternative media such as the Internet and mo-
bile telephony (cf. Ringdal, 2002; Schwebs and Otnes, 2006 [2001]). These
media are multimodal. They invite the subject to engage with images, anima-
tions, speech, music etc. at the same time as s/he is engaging with printed
text (Otnes, 2000; Kress and van Leeuwen, 1996 and 2001). Text signifies a
number of different things in contemporary society, but common elements
26
are combination and relationship. The relationship that previously marked
the unit of text is today an expanded relationship in which where many ele-
ments cooperate to constitute a totality. It is both the temporally limited as-
pects (e.g. the shifting status, birth and death of genres) as well as the
constantly limitless or boundless aspects of the phenomenon of ‘text’ that are
so fascinating. ‘Text’ changes conceptually and spatially, depending on the
contexts it appears in and the relation it has with the elements that it coope-
rates with. On the one hand, it is a limitable entity related to time; we can
describe the historicity of the text. On the other hand, it is a hybrid and ever-
changing, ‘amoeba-like’ element that extends beyond the known and points
into the future. We recognize the fact that various forms of text will probably
characterise coming epochs to an even stronger degree than they do today.
The rapid development within the field of information technology opens for
a number of interesting perspectives.
the concept of literacy
People today, regardless of their background, interests and age, have become
used to using modern text media (Seip Tønnessen,1992; Schwebs and Otnes,
2006 [2001]). This familiarity with modern technical media is, however, situated
in a text culture, or a reading and writing culture. This situatedness is what is
often termed ‘literacy’. Today there is an interesting and extensive body of re-
search into ‘literacy'. The equivalent Norwegian term for this concept is the
rather heavy expression ‘skriftkultur’ (script culture). Etymologically, however,
‘literacy’ simply means the ability to read and write (Bussmann, 1996). In a dis-
cussion of what constitutes a text or a textual expression, ‘literacy’ is a concept
that cannot be avoided.
‘Literacy’ can be considered as something of a codeword for more comp-
lex perspectives on reading and writing (Barton, 1994:5). Today, ‘literacy’ is
often a synonym for the German concept of ‘Bildung’, or the traditional Nor-
wegian concept of ‘dannelse’ (upbringing 4). ‘Literacy’ and the different acti-
vities connected to it are all linked to historical conditions and political power
relations. Institutions linked to the literacy field, such as libraries, bookshops
and publishing houses have gradually evolved. Rules and restrictions connec-
ted with the publishing process have been formulated in the state and muni-
cipal institutions that have also evolved. The educational system has also
undergone major parallel developments and changes (Barton, 1994: 127f.). 5
The various activities associated with texts have, of course, also changed a lot.
The status of texts must always be related to their social position at the time
of their conception or publication, and it is therefore wrong to project con-
temporary evaluative norms onto texts of earlier periods. (Jauss, 1997 [1991]:
657ff.). The temporal distance between the ‘now’ of the text and the ‘now’ of
27
the reader is an ongoing problem that has to be confronted by all who work
in the educational system. It is from this perspective that the pedagogical adap-
tation or didactisation of texts becomes vitally important. It is illusory to be-
lieve that one can unproblematically apply older texts to the contemporary
world. Certainly, anyone planning to use an older text for didactic purposes,
as a ‘pedagogical text’, must address the problem of temporality if pupils are
to fully benefit from engaging with the text.
Research into literacy has, necessarily, a close relationship to work carried
out in other areas of text research – fields such as critical textual analysis, dis-
course analysis, literary studies etc. (Barton, 1994: 22ff.). In this article, we
have only briefly touched upon fields such as reception aesthetics (cf. Jauss,
1974 and 1991) and institution theory (see for example Douglas, 1986). There
is considerable overlap between the various fields that work with text. For this
reason it might be appropriate to apply the term suggested by David Barton -
‘Literacy Studies’. This concept reveals the complexity of the field.6 The in-
dividual moves through a world of text during her/his entire life span and for
this reason textual competence and textual knowledge are desired goals in a
literacy culture such as ours. For this reason the school’s teaching of reading
and writing and relationships with texts, as broadly defined, are vitally impor-
tant. The child learns from an early age to combine sounds and, later, combi-
nations of sound sequences into words before whole units of meaning become
comprehensible. The child’s verbal language later becomes the resource that
s/he uses in order to be able to read and write. The relationship between spea-
king and writing and, ultimately, text, is a process that continues over many
years; some stages proceed effectively and quickly whereas others go more
slowly and are maybe problematic.
text and context – is it possible to create an ’original’ text?
A text, whether a short, limited pupil text or a long article or thesis, is the re-
sult of a process and much valuable relevant and valuable literature has been
written on the subject of process writing. However, it is also possible to think
of ‘process’ in an alternative manner. Process writing is generally regarded as
a practical method for creating more and better texts, for raising conscious-
ness about one’s own and others’ writing and for providing constant inspira-
tion for renewing texts. However, ‘process’ might also be perceived in another
way, namely as a continuous, lifelong and never-completed development of
one’s ‘own text’. ’Text’ here implies the potential for development or the
growth zone that is always present in the subject. The subject’s ‘text’ or, we
may wish to say, his/her textual competence, interacts constantly with the texts
that surround it and the process of text creation becomes an accompaniment
to the various processual movements that the individual goes through. In
28
order to continuously develop his/her own text it is necessary that the indi-
vidual borrows, copies, rewrites and combines, drawing upon both older and
newer patterns. In this way some of his/her own textual creation can contain
elements that are original and innovative. However, what we have is a circling
movement for the individual where the text space (Kristeva, 1979) offers pos-
sibilities for using what has already been written. This phenomenon is often
spoken of ‘intertextuality’, a concept that has become somewhat imprecise.
However, the term deserves our attention because it says something essential
and inescapable about text creation and textual competence.
The intertextual perspective is maybe a statement of the obvious. However,
it might seem discouraging and rather disillusioning if the corollary is that it
is impossible to create anything completely new.7 On the other hand, this
perspective offers endless possibilities for text creation if one accepts the bor-
rowed, the copied and even the plagiarized as necessary resources (Aamots-
bakken, 2007). In school, pupils are trained to produce texts by referring to
given models, and textbooks and educational material present so-called ex-
emplary or canonized texts (e.g. see Tønnesson, 2002; Aamotsbakken, 2003).
The intention behind incorporating such texts in the educational material is
precisely to show ‘models’, examples that may safely be ‘copied’. The canoni-
zed texts provide inspiration for the insecure and tentative pupil/writer (Even-
sen, 2001).
At school, pupils constantly work intertextually in a variety of ways. The ac-
tivities of reading, listening, writing or conversing are performed against the
background of a knowledge of older and contemporary texts. Just as a conver-
sation follows patterns from previous conversations, the writing process also
follows textual patterns that have been received by the pupil from many dif-
ferent cultural contexts. From the beginnings of language acquisition until
the child becomes fully aware of the relationship between phoneme and grap-
heme, s/he receives textual impressions every day. These impressions become,
to a greater or lesser degree, fixed as templates or patterns. They ‘lie there’,
ready to be used in subsequent text creation. For example, early children’s
texts often contain reminiscences from the fairy tale genre. The fairy tale’s
formulaic repetitions, such as the opening and closing lines, give the child
tools for starting and ending a text. It is clear that what we have here is an ex-
ample of intertextuality. The term ‘intertextuality’ is a relatively new one, first
used in the 1970s. However, the phenomenon is as old as writing itself (Ong,
1991 [1982]).
‘Intertextuality’ was, initially, largely used to describe literary, fictional texts.
Today it is applied to a broader variety of texts. This means that all activities
connected to reading, writing, text acquisition and text creation are seen as
being performed against a background of intertextual experience or compe-
29
tence. Text competence obviously incorporates the intertextual. An indi-
vidual’s competence builds upon earlier experience and knowledge of texts
and genres.8 It is only after reaching a certain level of competence that the in-
dividual can exploit what s/he has learned and create texts. The second term
of the dichotomy, performance, can also be considered here. In order to be
able to create anything with a degree of ‘originality’, an intertextual awareness,
and consequently competence, is essential. Only then is a successful performa-
tive activity possible. This is an evident relationship, characterizing anyone
who utilises texts and creates new ones. In its extreme consequence, this com-
petence also is linked to the situatedness of a reading role. We will later refer
to this as reader competence.
when does a text become ‘pedagogical’?
The term ‘pedagogical text’ firstly appears in the 1980s, in a number of con-
texts. A pragmatic and activity-related definition is: ”The basic idea of the pe-
dagogical text is that it should re-create or reproduce available knowledge,
not create new knowledge. […] In addition, the text must be structured in
accordance with certain pedagogical demands” (Selander, 1988: 17). What
characterizes this sort of text is that it should “explain something and that the
knowledge that the text reproduces should be tested or controlled fairly easily
by the teacher” (ibid.). As we mentioned in the introduction this definition ari-
ses from a reflection around the normative pedagogical application of the
text. Expressed in another manner, one defines a pedagogical text as a text lin-
ked to teaching situations where the primary intention is learning. The
strongly limiting element of this definition is to be found in the use of the
word ’reproduce’; this expresses a somewhat rigid view of the pupil. Put in ex-
treme terms, the pupil is seen as a passive receiver of knowledge. Knowledge
is to be received, reproduced and probably repeated; the pupil is not to create
anything out of the ’input’ that the pedagogical text has given him/her.9
The above reasoning is, of course, over-simplified, and, since the definition
is 15 years old, rather dated. However, the definition is referred to because it
has provided the foundation for a broader text typology (Grepstad, 1997). It
has also served to create an increased awareness of what is specific about texts
that are located in learning contexts. The definition has later been altered,
sharpened and broadened, as the result of discussion in the various forums
that are involved with research into didactic genres (see, for example Berge,
2001 and 2002). In an effort to give more substance to the institutionally re-
lated definition of pedagogical text, a fuller definition, with sub-categories,
was made. This establishes distinctions between texts about pedagogy/educa-
tion, texts for pedagogy/education and texts used in teaching (my italics) (Se-
lander, 2003: 223ff.). This fuller definition was related to text-specific features
30
such as “the texts’ boundaries, real references and definitive, serious quality
(Selander, 2003: 223). The last-mentioned feature refers to the texts’ presen-
tation form; for example, irony is an inconceivable text strategy. More recently,
an object-oriented definition has been formulated. In this definition, the older
meaning of ‘pedagogical text’ is included in one of the sub-categories. This de-
finition sees pedagogical text as a ‘cultural artefact’ (Selander, 2003: 224ff).
Cultural artefacts are of three types or levels: 1. “objects of processed raw ma-
terials , 2. tools, models and space and 3. scientific, pedagogical and ideologi-
cal texts” (ibid.).10 This final category defines text inclusively. Objects and
models are considered as belonging to the category of text, while the connec-
tion to an institutional context is still a framework factor. Very few of the sub-
categories, maybe with the exception of ‘ideological text’, can be freed from
an institutional application. This is, however, a quite insignificant objection
since it is problematic to use the concept of ‘institutional’ with a great degree
of precision. Our overall conclusion must be that a text can be received as pe-
dagogical, with regard to use arena, user intention, authorial intention and re-
lation to the reader.
In addition, the view of the pupil has changed considerably, partly be-
cause of the introduction of information technology in the school. With the
aid of this technology the pupil has to a greater extent become a creator or
producer of text. In addition, the pupil often has an equal or perhaps higher
technological competence than the teacher. This levelling of competence has
affected the classroom hierarchy. This has, naturally enough, led to a modified
view of the phenomenon of ‘pedagogical text’ (Selander, Åkerfeldt & Engström,
2007). This changed view of text is interesting, not least because the field of
pedagogical text seems to be more open and inclusive than one had earlier de-
fined it. A natural association, in this connection, is the extensive interdisci-
plinary work which has been a feature of the educational sector in recent
years. The tendency to integrate school subjects in many of today’s educational
institutions leads to a dissolving of rigid boundaries between school subjects.
The subjects’ texts, or canons, also come under pressure and inroads are made
into them. On the one hand, this might be viewed as a destructive process,
but on the other it can be regarded as an acceptance of new forms of text,
ways of thinking and discourse. At this point we might return to our prelimi-
nary definition of the concept of ‘pedagogical texts’, namely that they are texts
which enlighten. With a growing command of technology and experimenta-
tion with text formation and alternation between media, we are able to include
more texts in the category of ‘pedagogical text’.
Until now we have only suggested that attempts have been made to define
’pedagogical text’ in text typological terms. Ottar Grepstad has in his book
Det litterære skattkammer. Sakprosaens teori og retorikk (The Literary Trea-
31
sury. The Theory and Rhetoric of Non-Fiction) (1997) included ’pedagogical
texts’ in a text typological perspective based on Egon Werlich’s model of five
text types. However, by adding ‘pedagogical text’, Grepstad makes the mistake
of confusing widely different principles of text categorization. While Selan-
der’s term ‘pedagogic text’ is pragmatic in that it is activity and institution
orientated 11 , Werlich’s text-typology is text internal and temporally indepen-
dent. In other words, it is neither genre orientated nor linked to changing
genre development and status. By taking such an approach, Grepstad blends
categories which do not harmonize, since Werlich’s five text types mutually
exclude each other. On the other hand, Selander’s category of ‘pedagogical
text’ can be viewed as including varying occurrences of different text types, ac-
cording to Werlich’s definitions. Werlich’s categories ’instruction’, ’argumen-
tation’, narration’, ‘exposition’ and ‘description’ are basic types that
characterize large parts of a text (Werlich, 1976: 39)12, and they are to be
found at all times and in all text cultures. It is therefore incorrect to relate the
concept of genre to the concept of text type, since genres are dominated by
temporal and cultural text norms and are therefore in a state of continuous
change and movement (Ledin, 1996; Cutting, 2002).
Genre, in a school context, is in fact often replaced by the term ‘text type’,
and these terms can of course function as acceptable synonyms in a pedago-
gical situation. All the same, such a parallelization or synonymization is un-
helpful if we are searching for more precise categorizations. Genres are, as
mentioned, temporally dependent categories which can always be viewed in
terms of social situations or socio-cultural developments. In addition, it is na-
tural to connect the phenomenon of genre with text external categories, such
as different discourse elements. (Swales, 1990; Fairclough, 1992). Discourse
elements can, for example, be structural patterns in texts, and if such patterns
are frequently found they can be said to form prototypes. In other words, the
presence of repetitive conventional characteristics of different texts indicates
prototypes.
‘Pedagogical text’ has, consequently, implications for genre norms as well
as for more text internal categorizations like the ones we have mentioned
above. Text-linguistic analyses often use both text internal and text external
principles of categorization. In a school context such analyses can function as
good didactic instruments. Yet it is the social context of the texts that deter-
mine if a broader analytical concept may be more purposeful. Modern dis-
course analysis, or what today is included in the field of ‘critical text analysis’,
sees the text as being in interaction with its textual surroundings. For this rea-
son an adapted analytical model, in line with, for example, Michael Halliday’s
view of language, might function well in school.13 This model focuses on
functions, and in a classroom situation it is often necessary to show texts’ in-
32
tentions, functions, and cultural frameworks. Only then can we claim that texts
function ‘pedagogically’, and are thus ‘pedagogical texts’ in a wider sense.
are all texts used in a school context ‘pedagogical texts’?
The classroom as an arena and everyday school life as an existential framework
involve continual text usage and text formation. Without defining all school
activities as texts, we can claim that most school subjects are ‘text subjects’,
even though the nature and scope of teaching materials might differ greatly.
Most textbooks and other teaching materials have text elements that work to-
gether with other media expressions such as pictures, sound, animation etc.
Can we define all textual elements in textbooks and teaching material as pe-
dagogical texts? We think the answer to this question is a qualified yes.
The first important matter that arises here is related to the issue of co-
pyright. Both non-fictional and fictional prose texts are to a certain degree
protected, especially the latter. If a fictional text is used in a school anthology
the author and publisher must be contacted and recompensed. This stipula-
tion does not apply to texts that are more than 50 years old.
Regardless of copyright, age, etc. it is an open question as to whether the
text changes character when incorporated in a textbook. There is no doubt
that the intention behind choosing specific literary texts for an anthology or
a school edition is a different one than the original authorial intention. Very
few authors actually write texts primarily for use in school. Most authors, ho-
wever, will be happy to have their work used, since school texts are part of a
common cultural meeting place. However, it is worth noting that a text which
becomes part of a school anthology can change character in many ways. It is,
for example, common to link assignments to the text. In many cases this di-
rects interpretation along certain paths and it thus can be argued that other
approaches may be ruled out or obscured. For this reason the reader of school
texts, usually the pupil, will not enter the role of an imagined or intended rea-
der to the same extent as an independent reader will (Eco, 1979; Iser, 1974;
Bjorvand & Seip Tønnessen, 2002). The pupil is subjected to the teacher’s,
co-pupils’ and, not least, to the publisher’s editorial influences when it comes
to forming his/her literary perspective. This pedagogical adaptation of the
text can on the one hand result in the pupil seeing textual patterns s/he would
otherwise have been unaware of. On the other hand, important literary fea-
tures of the text might remain unexplored (Smidt, 1989).
The same potential for change applies to non-fictional texts and factual
prose texts such as newspaper texts, advertising texts and pamphlets when
they are used as teaching material. Abridgements and adjustments to language
and content will often be made. Such texts will often be linked to related gen-
res for purposes of comparison. In this way the texts risk being received and
33
used exclusively in their pedagogical contexts. They will therefore not possess
the real referentiality that could benefit the pupil (Ricoeur, 1979: 190).14 Stu-
dents might consequently form a one-dimensional understanding of such
texts if these are used to exemplify categories such as genre or phenomena
such as style or voice. The texts’ distinctive character can vanish as a result of
the eagerness to empty their potential for purposes of illustration, paralleliza-
tion and exemplification. This is a dilemma that is linked to all use of text in
a pedagogic context, and teachers have to be aware of these limitations that
can result from didactisation.
The answer to the question we posed at the beginning of this section is
still a positive one. Most texts can be used pedagogically and didactically, and
thus broadly defined as ‘pedagogical’. However, there is an important diffe-
rence between texts written or created for a pedagogical context and texts
that are installed or integrated within a pedagogical textual framework. We
have pointed out that a fictional text, such as a short story by Alexander Kiel-
land, changes character if it is incorporated in a literary anthology for school
use. The text is firstly put into a temporal frame with facts about literary his-
tory and comparisons with texts of the same category. The text can also be
provided with explanatory notes, vocabulary notes, biographical details, pic-
tures etc. Finally, it is also usual to create assignments that are linked to the
text. With so many extra textual elements the text of the short story will neces-
sarily emerge differently than if it were read as part of a collected edition of
Kielland’s short stories.
A relevant question is whether pedagogical texts operate in different tex-
tual fields. Gérard Genette, in Palimpseste. La literature au second degré
(1982) and Paratexts (1997) has categorized elements of text and full texts
into a hierarchic system that describes printed texts, such as those found in a
book. Genette establishes these categories in order to look at the relations
between the different elements. He is concerned with the lines of communi-
cation which are implicit and self-evident components of the reader’s under-
standing of the text. Genette speaks of paratextual relations and in our context
the relations between a fictional text in a school anthology and the assign-
ments that come with it are of a paratextual character. The lines of communi-
cation are explicit when the linked assignments mention details in the text,
names, concepts, etc. They are at the same time implicit because they presupp-
ose an interpretive reading of the same text. This double textual relation bet-
ween ‘main text’ and ‘additional text’ is characteristic of texts which have been
anthologized for use in school. Such a double relation is a characteristic of al-
most all original texts that are used in a school context. Such texts function as
pedagogical texts, but have their origins in other media or cultural contexts.
The conclusion is that ‘the pedagogical text’ often constitutes a framing factor
34
vis-a-vis other texts and that it is the amalgamation of frames and original text
that emerges in what we regard as the pedagogical text.
Is it then the ‘original text’ or the paratexts that constitute the pedago-
gical text? The answer to this is that it is both of them. The kind of pedagogical
text which we have described here is one of many types. The more unadulte-
rated pedagogical text is, of course, the one that is created for a pedagogical
or didactic context; for example the body text in a textbook, an instruction
book, etc.15
The digital texts that are being increasingly used in the classroom or in
the school’s data labs are, by their nature, more interactive than linear, printed
paper texts. However, the digital texts are located in the same situational cont-
ext as the traditional pedagogical texts, since they share the same underlying
purpose. Their function is to inform and educate.
Their textual nature, however, is different. They are characterized by a
greater simultaneousness, with the possibility for greater variation and with a
greater potential for pupil activity than the more traditional texts. From a pa-
ratextual perspective it can be claimed that the digital texts are more complex
and at the same time more unpredictable or unstable than the linear and con-
ventional ones. What constitutes the main text or main element on the screen
is often difficult to interpret and definitively determine. It depends on what
one is looking for and what one’s preferences are. The many links can, for ex-
ample, lead out and go beyond the text, and in this way create a kind of ‘in-
stability’, which makes it problematic to decide what the pedagogical text
includes. However, this form of instability or unpredictability holds a lot of
possibilities for the user, in our case the student or the pupil. Text creation on
the screen implies rapid displacement, quick gathering of information and
relevant source material, together with direct or online communication.16
Today’s pupils encounter fascinating opportunities for text creation as well
as text application, appropriation and adaptation. What were earlier conside-
red slow processes can now occur quickly and therefore with less resistance
and frustration, at least in pedagogical contexts. As the pedagogical text has
become so finely divided into subcategories, there are a number of possibilities
open to the teacher. At the same time, this demands technological compe-
tence. As we pointed out previously, the classroom hierarchy has been affected
by the introduction of ICT in school, and there has been a parallel change to
perceptions of learning.
Finally, it might be interesting to consider new perspectives on the role of
the author and the role of the teacher and his traditional authority. Gunther
Kress is among those who do just this, by claiming that, in today’s media world,
it is the reader who is the author. This perspective can be traced back to similar
reflections made by scholars such as Roland Barthes (1993 [1988]) and Stan-
35

ley Fish (1980). The author of the text does not have the same authority as ear-
lier; he is ‘dethroned’, in the words of Barthes. This has implications for the
teacher’s role. Co-creation and use of text, reading and the ‘parallel authors-
hip’ of pupils and students has changed social as well the pedagogical struc-
tures, inside and outside the classroom. What these changes might come to
mean for future pedagogical texts and contexts is difficult to forecast. Here we
shall not attempt to draw a conclusion, but predict that new pedagogical texts
will bring about a series of challenges for pupils and students, teachers and in-
stitutions. There is an increasing production of text, on both paper and
screen. For this reason the authorization of the text-creating reader or the
reading text-creator is a fascinating prospect.
...
1 In the preface of an academic anthology from a research conference on pedagogic texts, held in April 2006
at Vestfold University College, the undesirability of defining the concept with too much precision is stated: “It is
unlikely that we will, in the near future, arrive at a final definition of the concept of ‘pedagogical text’. Neither do
we wish to. By allowing the concept to remain open-ended it is also flexible and inclusive. By operating with an
open-ended concept, we avoid excluding potential future texts, in various genres and media. We live in a time
of rapid change in a number of fields, and the digital media provide us with the possibilities of including new texts,
new forms of expression and new genres rather than clinging to a final and fixed definition” (Knudsen, Skjelbred
and Aamotsbakken, 2007).
2 Such a perspective will consequently differ from a more pragmatic and activity-orientated pedagogical text
theory which regards a ‘pedagogical text’ as a text produced for a specific, institutionalized use (cf. Selander,
1988: 17). In addition it will also differ from a more text-internal, typological perspective (see for example Werlich,
1975 and 1976). Moreover, it must be added that the activity-orientated understanding of the concept has itself
been modified and developed (see Selander, 2003).
3 A related and extensive area of study is that of non-fiction text research, which both internationally and na-
tionally is relatively recently established. Text research has traditionally been focussed on fictional texts, but the
projects Norsk Sakprosa and Prosjektmiljøet Norsk Sakprosa 2000 – 2003 (Norwegian Non-Fiction and the
Project Field of Norwegian Non-Fiction 2000 - 2003) have raised an awareness of many alternative and im-
portant text cultures. See, for example, the principal studies from these projects; (Johnsen and Berg Eriksen,
1998a and b) and Skrifter fra prosjektmiljøet Norsk sakprosa 1-9 (Texts from the Project Field of Norwegian
Non-Fiction) (Berge et al. 2001-2003).
4 The German and the Norwegian expressions are difficult to translate. The expression ‘upbringing’ is conse-
quently insufficient to cover the meaning of the concept.
5 The concept of literacy has, over time, become so fragmented and ambiguous that employing it with a degree
of precision and validity is problematic. Gunther Kress discusses the development of the concept and wishes to
avoid what he calls the ”currently fashionable use of the term” (Kress, 2003:23). Kress speaks of a number of
common contexts and cultures that ‘literacy’ is connected to, such as ”visual literacy, gestural literacy, musical li-
teracy, media literacy, computer-, cultural-, emotional-, sexual-, internet- and so on and so on […]” (ibid.). This
empties the concept of meaning. Instead, Kress wishes to restrict the concept to three areas: ”1. words that name
the resources for representing and their potential – speech, writing, image, gesture; 2. words that name the use
of the resources in the production of the message . literacy, oracy, signing, numeracy, (aspects of) ’computer li-
teracy’ and of ’media literacy’, internet-literacy; and 3. words that name the involvement of the resources for the
dissemination of meanings as message – internet publishing, as one instance.” (ibid.)
36
6 In his introductory book David Barton limits himself to “print literacy” (Barton, 1994: 23), and he justifies this
term by stating that he is neither concerned with orality nor with the significance of other media. This limitation
is necessary, he claims, in order to demarcate a subject that is reasonably manageable (ibid.).
7 Even though he is writing about the field of fiction, Harold Bloom’s much-discussed work The Anxiety of In-
fluence (1973) is of interest,. Bloom describes the aversion of fictional authors towards the influence of great
literary models. It is impossible to avoid such influence, Bloom claims. This postulate corresponds to our more
general observations about the ‘necessity’ of intertextuality.
8 Competence here has the same application as in Noam Chomsky’s generative grammar. Literary and textual
competence can, however, be a broader concept (see for example Culler 1975 and 1981).
9 It must be added that the concept of ’reproduction’, when used in a pedagogical and didactic context, can have
a wider meaning that that given above. Re-production can also mean innovation, in that the pupil or student ac-
tively utilises what has already been created in his/her own text process. What is reproduced will probably deviate
somewhat from the original. The changes that are made can be of low or high quality; however, what is important
is that what is reproduced differs from the original.
10 The last category: scientific, pedagogical and ideological texts, is defined as ”institutionally limited texts”. The
sub-category of pedagogical text is further again divided into two (see Selander, 2003: 227f.).
11 This applies to both the 1988 and 2003 definitions, even though the latter is far more nuanced
12 Werlich’s characteristic is ”dominant textual foci” (ibid).
13 See for example Berge et al. (1998) on Halliday’s functional grammar.
14 Ricoeur distinguishes between discourses with centripetal and centrifugal directions. For example, a poetic
discourse has a centripetal direction when it only points towards inwardly on itself and not to anything external.
It therefore has no real reference. A didactic discourse, on the other hand, points away from itself towards so-
mething outside and is therefore labelled centrifugal.
It must be noted that the term ‘centrifugal’ is used more flexibly than in Ricoeur’s interpretation. We interpret
‘centrifugal’ to mean that the pupil will be able to fully benefit from a text’s centrifugal direction if he can see the
text’s pedagogical function parallel to its common text function. For example, a newspaper feature article, has a ge-
neral cultural intention when it is in its usual place in the paper. When the same article is used in the classroom it
undergoes a changed relationship with the reader. Teachers commonly experience that students only are aware of
one of the functions; it is the pedagogical situation that prevents realisation of the full potential of the text.
15 In our context it is sometimes appropriate to draw a line between textbook and teaching material, as is done
in several theoretical contributions (see for example Selander, 2002: 222 f.; Grepstad, 1997: 517). However, the
concept of textbook in this context is often too narrow because the term ‘textbook’ generally means a text crea-
ted for a specific pedagogical purpose. Anthologies will, in such a perspective, fall outside the definition as they
lie in the borderland between the traditional textbook and the original text, here defined as a text produced for
a different purpose than the pedagogical or didactic. Selander establishes this distinction between textbook
and teaching material: ”A textbook remains a textbook even outside of school, while the above definitions of tea-
ching material can give the possibility of one and the same text being or not being teaching material simultane-
ously, depending on whether it is used in or outside of school” (Selander, 2003: 222).
16 For example, it is claimed by Arne Olav Nygard that information technology (IT) has taken an important step
forward as a result of integrating the C of communication:”The introduction of the C in the IT concept, the re-
cognition that one can communicate through digital media, has had consequences for how, how often, to whom
and why we write, and it has maybe become the very reason for why we write in different situations” (Nygard,
2003:21).
37
 Bussman, H (1996): Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics, London: Routledge.
References
Culler, J. (1975): Structuralist Poetics. Structuralism Linguistics and the Study of Literature, London:
Aamotsbakken, B. (2003): Skolens kanon – vår viktigste lesedannelse? En studie i kanonisering i norskfaglige
Routledge.
antologier for videregående skole, allmennfaglig studie-retning, (The School Canon - our major
Culler, J. (1981): The Pursuit of Signs, London: Routledge.
Literacy Upbringing? A Research Project in Canonization in Anthologies in Mother Tongue
Cutting, J. (2002): Pragmatics and Discourse. A resource book for students, London: Routledge.
for Upper Secondary School) Rapport 9/2003, Tønsberg: Senter for pedagogiske tekster og
Derrida, J. (1977): De la grammatologie, Paris: Seuil.
læreprosesser.
Douglas, M. (1986): How Institutions think, London: Routledge.
Aamotsbakken, B. (2006). ”Hvor ble den røde tråden av?”, (What happened to the Governing Idea?) in:
Eco, U. (1979): The Role of the Reader. Explorations in the semiotics of texts, London: Hutchinson.
Maagerø, E. og Tønnessen E.S. (eds.): Å lese i alle fag, (Reading in all Curriculum Subjects)
Evensen, L.S. (2001): “Tekstkompetanse ved konvensjonens grenser”, (Text Competence on the Edge of
Oslo: Universitetsforlaget
Convention) in: Hetmar, V. & Knudsen, S.V. (eds.): Tekstkompetence. (Text Compentence)
Aamotsbakken, B. (2006): “The relation between the model reader/-s and the authentic readers/-s.
Report from research conference held by the Nordic Network for Text and Literature
Possibilities for identification when reading curricular texts”, in: Bruillard, É., Aamotsbakken,
Pedagogy, Copenhagen.
B., Horsley, M. & Knudsen, S.V. (eds.). Caught in the Web or Lost in the Textbook. Volume from the
Fairclough, N. (1992): Discourse and Social Change, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Eighth International IARTEM conference on Learning and Educational Media. Najac:
Fish, S.E. (1980): Is There a Text in this Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities, Cambridge, Mass.:
IUFM/Stef/IARTEM, ISSN 1402-9693, p. 99–109
Harvard University Press.
Aamotsbakken, B. (2007). ”Pedagogiske intertekster. Intertekstualitet som teoretisk og praktisk begrep”,
Genette, G. (1982): Palimpsestes. La littérature au second degré, Paris: Seuil.
(Pedagogical Intertexts. Intertextuality as a Theoretical and Practical Concept) in: Knudsen,
Genette, G. (1997): Paratexts: Thresholds of Interpretation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
S.V., Skjelbred, D. & Aamotsbakken, B (eds.).: Tekst i vekst. Teoretiske, historiske og analytiske
Goody, J. (1977): The domestication of the savage mind, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
perspektiver på pedagogiske tekster, (Texts in Growth. Theoretical, Historical and Analytic
Grepstad, O. (1997): Det litterære skattkammer. Sakprosaens teori og retorikk, (The Literary Treasury. Theory
Perspectives on Pedagogical Texts) Oslo: Novus forlag, p. 29–49
and Rhetoric of Non-Fiction) Oslo: Det Norske Samlaget.
Barton, D. (1994): Literacy. An Introduction to the Ecology of Written Language, Oxford:Blackwell.
Iser, W. (1974): The Implied Reader. Patterns of Communication in Prose Fiction from Bunyan to Beckett,
Barton, D., Hamilton, M. & Ivani_, R. (eds.) (2000): Situated Literacies. Reading and Writing in Context,
London and Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Abingdon & New York: Routledge
Jauss, H.R. (1974): Literaturgeschichte als Provokation, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Barthes, R. (1993 [1988]): ”The Death of the Author”, in: Lodge, D. (ed.): Modern Criticism and Theory. A
Jauss, H.R. (1997 [1991]): Ästetische Erfahrung und literarische Hermeneutik, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Reader, London: Longman.
Johnsen, E.B. & Berg Eriksen, T. (1998a): Norsk litteraturhistorie. Sakprosa fra 1750 til 1995. Bind I,
Berge, K.L. (1990): Tekstnormers diakroni, (The Diachrony of Textual Norms) Stockholm: Mins.
1750–1920, (Norwegian History of Literature. Non-Fiction from 1750 to 1995. Volume 1,
Berge, K.L., Coppock, P. & Maagerø, E. (eds.) (1998): Å skape mening med språk: en Samling artikler av
1750–1920) Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
M.A.K. Halliday, R. Hasan og J.R. Martin, (To Create Meaning through Language. Essays by
Johnsen, E.B. & Berg Eriksen, T. (1998b): Norsk litteraturhistorie. Sakprosa fra 1750 til 1995. Bind 2.
M.A.K. Halliday, R. Hasan and J.R. Martin) Oslo: LNU / Cappelen.
1920–1995, (Norwegian History of Literature. Non-Fiction from 1750 to 1995. Volume 2.
Berge, K.L. (2001): ”Det vitenskapelige studiet av sakprosa. Om tekstvitenskapelige
1920–1995) Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
utfordringer og løsninger i norsk og svensk sakprosaforskning”, (The Scientific Study of
Kress, G.R. & Van Leeuwen, T. (1996): Reading Images; The Grammar of Visual Design, London: Routledge.
Non-Fiction. Scientific Challenges and Solutions in Norwegian and Swedish Research on
Kress, G.R. & Van Leeuwen, T. (2001): Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary
Non-Fiction) in:
Communication, London: Edward Arnold.
Berge, K.L. et al. (eds.): Fire blikk på sakprosaen. Teori og praktisk analyse. Skrifter fra prosjekt-miljøet
Kress, G.R. (2003: Literacy in the New Media Age, London: Routledge.
Norsk sakprosa. Nr. 1, (Four Views on Non-Fiction. Theory and Practical Analysis. Texts from
Kristeva, J. (1979): Polylogue. Recherches pour une sémanalyse, Paris: Seuil. English edition(1980): Desire in
the Tesearch Field Norwegian Non-Fiction no. 1) Oslo: Institutt for nordistikk og
Language. A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art, New York: Colombia University Press.
litteraturvitenskap.
Ledin, P. (1996): Genrebegreppet – en forskningsöversikt. Rapporter från Svensk sakprosa nr. 2
Berge, K.L. (2002): Teksthistorie. Tekstvitenskapelige bidrag. Skrifter fra prosjektmiljøet Norsk sakprosa. Nr. 6,
(The Concept of Genre - a Research Survey. Reports from Swedish Non-Fiction no. 2),
(Text History. Contributions of Textual Science. Texts from the Research Field Norwegian
Lund: Institutionen för nordiska språk.
Non-Fiction no. 6) Oslo: Institutt for nordistikk og litteraturvitenskap.
Ledin, P. (1999): Texter och textslag – en teoretisk diskussion. Rapporter från Svensk Sakprosa nr. 27,
Bhatia, V.K. (1993): Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings, London: Longman.
(Texts and Text Types - a Theoretical Discussion. Reports from Swedish Non-Fiction no. 27)
Bjorvand, A.-M. & Seip Tønnessen, E. (2002): Den andre leseopplæringa. Utvikling av lesekompetanse hos barn
Lund: Institutionen för nordiska språk.
og unge, (The Second Teaching of Literacy. The Development of Reading Compentence for
Logde, D. (red.) (1988): Modern Criticism and Theory. A Reader, London: Longman.
Children and Young People) Oslo: Universitetsforlaget
Bloom, H. (1973): The Anxiety of Influence, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

38 39
Nygard, A.O. (2003): ”Hva med leseren? Resepsjonsperspektivet i diskusjonen om digital lesing”, (What
about the Reader? The Reception Perspective in the Discussion about Digital Reading) in:
Norsklæreren. Tidsskrift for språk og litteratur, nr. 4/2003, Bergen: LNU, Fagbokforlaget.
Ong, W.J. (1991 [1982]): Orality and Literacy. The Technologizing of the Word, London: Routledge.
Otnes, H. (2000): ”Flerstemmig tekstskaping. Koherens og respons i nettsamtaler”, (Polyphonic Creation
of Texts. Coherence and Response in Conversations on the Internet) in: Tekst og tone på
internett, Rapport nr. 2. Høgskolen i Hedmark, (Text and Sound on the Internet. Report no. 2.
the University College of Hedmark), p. 11–25
Ricoeur, P. (1979): Fortolkningsteori, (Theory of Interpretation) København: Vinten.
Ricoeur, P. (1997): ”Den metaforiske proces som kognition, imagination og følelse”, (The Metaphorical
Process as Cognition, Imagination and Feeling) in: Krogh Hansen, P. & Holmgaard, J. (eds.):
Billedsprog. Om metaforen og andre troper, (Figurative Language. On Metaphor and other Tropes)
Aalborg: Medusa. Ricoeur’s article is a Danish translation of ”The Metaphorical Process as
Cognition, Imagination and Feeling”, in: Sacks, S. (ed.) (1978): On Metaphor, Chicago.
Ringdal, E. (2002): ”16 år og tekstmeldar: Stadig myldrande skriving (SMS)”, (16 years of age and
sms-User. Continuous Flourishing writing (SMS)) in: Tønnesson, J.L. (ed.): Den flerstemmige
sakprosaen. Nye tekstanalyser, (The Polyphonic Non-Fiction. New Textual Analyses) Bergen:
LNU/Fagbok-forlaget.
Seip Tønnessen, E. (1992): Mening i medier. Medietekster i norskundervisningen, (Meaning in Media.
Media-Texts in the Teaching of Mother Tongue) Oslo: LNU/ J.W. Cappelens forlag AS.
Selander, S. (1988): ”Skolkunskap och pedagogisk textanalys”, (School Competence and Pedagogical
Textual Analysis) in: Skolböcker 3. Den (o)möjliga läroboken, (Textbooks 3. The (im)possible
Textbook) Rapport från Läromedelöversynen, Utbildningsdepartementet.
Selander, S. (2003): ”Pedagogiska texter och andre artefakter för kunskap och kommunikation”,
(Pedagogical Texts and other Artefacts for Knowledge and Communication) in: Läromedel –
specifikt – Betänkande om läromedel för funktionshindrade, (Special Educational Media - a Report
on Educational Media for Disabled) SOU 2003, Stockholm: Fritzes Offentliga Publikationer.
Selander, S., Åkerfeldt, A. & Engström, S. (2007): ”Ressurser för lärande i en digital miljö - om ”Learning
Design Sequences”, (Resources for Learning in a Digital Environment - on ”Learning Design
Sequences”) in: Knudsen, S.V., Skjelbred, D. & Aamotsbakken, B. (eds.).: Tekst i vekst. Teoretiske,
historiske og analytiske perspektiver på pedagogiske tekster, (Texts in Growth. Theoretical, Historical
and Analytic Perspectives on Pedagogical Texts) Oslo: Novus forlag
Smidt, J. (1989): Seks lesere på skolen. - Hva de søkte, hva de fant, (Six Readers at School. - What they looked
for and what they found) Trondheim: Universitetet i Trondheim, doctoral dissertation
Swales, J.M. (1990): Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Schwebs, T. & Otnes, H. (2006 [2001]): tekst.no. Strukturer og sjangrer i digitale medier, (tekst.no. Structures
and Genres in Digital Media) Oslo: LNU / J.W. Cappelens forlag AS.
Tønnessen, F.E. (2002): Review of Perspectives on language and literacy. Beyond here and now, Harvard
Educational Review Reprint Series No. 35.
Tønnesson, J.L. (2002): “Alt anna enn dikting?”, (Anything but Fiction) in: Tønnesson, J.L. (ed.):
Den flerstemmige sakprosaen. Nye tekstanalyser, (The Polyphonic Non-Fiction. New Textual
Analyses) Bergen: LNU / Fagbokforlaget.
Werlich, E. (1975): Typologie der Texte. Entwurf eines textlinguistisches Modells zur Grundlegung einer
Textgrammatik, Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer.
Werlich, E. (1976): A Text Grammar of English, Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer

40